[elias12]

I am not sure if it is ridiculous. It depends. It's about a line that everyone has to draw and to set. And this also what Marco is trying to mention in his post I guess.

Let's take a more extreme example from history, just for pointing out that there is a line: I hope we could agree that supporting the NSDAP is as far over such a line as imaginable.

Not comparing anyone in this context with the NSDAP, just pointing out that there is such a line, and hiding behind "political free opinion" doesn't help to avoid hard decisions.

[fwn]

It's good that you aren't comparing this current context with our modern view on the NSDAP.

Mainly because pressuring others into supporting a certain candidate through non-political means really is ridiculous and a deeply concerning attitude in democratic societies.

[elias12]

Wait a second, maybe I can't follow you here. Are you saying that there should be no consequences for anyone no matter who someone is political supporting, because it is in political context?

If so, two questions: - What if someone is supporting someone in none political context (which is hard, cause kind of nearly everything could be defined as such), does then someone have to stand for her/his public behaviour and face disagreement or consequences? - What if someone supports politically the KKK, the IS or any other organisation or party, that you might not agree with?

How about a much more important thing in our constitution: Free speech. Does free speech mean I can say and publicly announce anything, without having to face consequences?

[fwn]

> Are you saying that there should be no consequences for anyone no matter who someone is political supporting, because it is in political context?

Not at all. I was inplying that the consequences should be political as well.

If your children aren't your opinion, try to engage in valuable conversation instead of cutting their allowance. If your neighbor puts up a sign for a candidate you don't like, put up your own sign and don't try to pressure his employer into making him leave.

Democratic societies actively require political variation. Using your physical or economic strength or maybe your status to make people do or state things they don't like is blatantly uncivil.

I'm not an expert on US constitutional law & procedure so you might need to make your own research on their legal specifics in this certain case, but in most western setups I'd bet it's not a very good idea to believe in a legal right which might allow you to publicly announce "anything". But I don't see its relation to our topic here, I think it's probably not essential.